Texas Marriage Ban: HJR No. 6 & Family Values

[Gokul43201]

I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, but my parents were not from there, so I was raised like a normal human and luckily, was not Texanized.

Phew ! Good thing that. Else we'd have had to call in a Texorcist or make you go through a complete detexification.

 

[Futobingoro]

I do not understand why people are homophobic, it's ridiculous.

I think that one would be surprised to know how many "tolerant" people are actually very intolerant. A quick Google search turned up this site, which contains the comments of some very intolerant "tolerant" people:

The person who made that website should be strung up by his... [censored] and should be beaten to death with a [censored].

Such rhetoric reminds many of KKK speeches, but these were the remarks of a pro-Gay Rights individual, talking about a website which is very critical of the Gay Rights movement! Others made similar comments about the "homophobes" who run the website. Unfortunately, when people make these statements about homophobes, they become "homophobephobes" by definition.

I do not think that the people in this thread are anywhere close to the individuals on the other website, but "homophobephobia" is a trap that all should be aware of.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Else we'd have had to call in a Texorcist or make you go through a complete detexification.

You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much.

That reminds me of the time I had to rent a truck in Texas. I went on down to Y'all Haul and got the truck...

Okay now stop that. We all love Texas, right y'all! :shy:

 

[Moonbear]

The ban is clearly unconstitutional, and the first person to sue will have it thrown out by a court. So much for their gay-bashing plans, ha !

Actually, it seems perfectly constitutional to me...it equally bans everyone from getting married. I have no problem with that. If a state wants to ban marriage completely, for everyone, then I say go for it (it takes a lot of the pressure off us single people ).

Russ, the way it's worded is they provide a definition, and then say anything identical to what was described in that definition (marriage), is banned. Legally speaking, I'd have to agree that the interpretation is that marriage, as well as things similar to marriage, are prohibited. The only ambiguity is "how similar" is similar? They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

 

[wasteofo2]

They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

Oh my god, you're a genius...

That would be so great if some gay couple argued that in court and they won. It'd be like how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used for a bit to justify breaking up unions...

 

[Danger]

Brilliant, Moonbear! I can't wait to see the first court case.

 

[franznietzsche]

They may have actually prohibited marriage between men and women, but if the rationale is that a civil union between two men or two women is something different than marriage between a man and a woman, it may be that only civil unions for gay couples are now permitted.

That'll teach the "Jesus Hates"(tm) people why they shouldn't be against education. Now they'll all have to burn for eternity for being forced to marry people of the same sex.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh my god, you're a genius...

Yes, she is. That's our Moonbear. Actually come to think of it, all the PF sisters are quite brilliant.